DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-6, 10, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 11-14, and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11782315. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by or obvious in view of the claims of the Patent as follows.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 18 of the patent recites a method, comprising: determining a set of illumination wavelengths, wherein the set of illumination wavelengths includes at least one illumination wavelength in each of at least three different color spectrums; selecting a liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) display as a spatial light modulator, the LCoS display operating in at least one of a vertically aligned nematic (VAN) mode and a twisted vertically aligned nematic (TVAN) mode (lines 1-9 of claim 18); and selecting an external retarder having a phase retardation less than 0.25 for each of the wavelengths in the set of illumination wavelengths (lines 10-11 and 15-16 of claim 18).
Regarding claim 2, Claim 18 of the patent recites orienting a slow axis of the external retarder to be parallel to a slow axis of the spatial light modulator (lines 17-18 and 24-25 of claim 18).
Regarding claim 11, Claim 10 of the patent recites a display system, comprising: a spatial light modulator (lines 1-2 of claim 10) characterized by a first retardation and a first phase retardation, wherein the spatial light modulator has a first slow axis for light propagation (lines 4-8 of claim 10), wherein the spatial light modulator is a liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) display that operates in at least one of a vertically aligned nematic (VAN) mode and a twisted vertically aligned nematic (TVAN) mode (lines 8-11 of claim 10); and a retarder that is positioned external to the spatial light modulator, wherein the retarder is characterized by a second retardation and a second phase retardation, the retarder comprising a second slow axis for light propagation (lines 12-16 of claim 10), wherein the second retardation has a value such that the retarder has a phase retardation value below 0.25 for all illumination wavelengths in a set of illumination wavelengths, wherein the set of illumination wavelengths includes at least one illumination wavelength in each of at least three different color spectrums (lines 16-19 of claim 10).
Regarding claim 12, Claim 10 of the patent recites: the second slow axis is parallel to the first slow axis (lines 15-16 of claim 10).
Regarding claim 13, Claim 11 of the patent recites a polarizer having a polarization axis, wherein the retarder is between the polarizer and the spatial light modulator, wherein the second slow axis is rotated 45 degrees with respect to the polarization axis (lines 1-5 of claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, Claim 13 of the patent recites: a voltage source that is configured to apply a drive voltage to the spatial light modulator, wherein: a retardation of the spatial light modulator is a function of the drive voltage; and for each of the illumination wavelengths in the set of illumination wavelengths, the drive voltage for an off-state is set to an off-state drive voltage wherein a value of a combination of the phase retardation of the spatial light modulator and the phase retardation of the retarder is at or near 0.25 such that a contrast ratio is greater than 2000 (lines 1-10 of claim 13) .
Regarding claim 16, Claim 14 of the patent recites at the respective off-state drive voltage, a zero or near-zero minimum is present in an electro-optical curve for each illumination wavelength (lines 1-4 of claim 14).
Regarding claim 17, Claim 15 of the patent recites the spatial light modulator is configured to receive incident light and output an image; the image comprises at least three different colors that correspond to each of the illumination wavelengths in the set of illumination wavelengths; and a contrast ratio for each of the three different colors is greater than 2000 (lines 1-7 of claim 15).
Regarding claim 18, Claim 16 of the patent recites: the at least three different color spectrums comprise red, green, and blue color spectrums (lines 1-3 of claim 16).
Regarding claim 19, Claim 12 of the patent teaches that the second retardation has a value that is less than one-fourth of a shortest illumination wavelength of the set of illumination wavelengths (lines 1-4 of claim 12).
Regarding claim 20, Claim 17 of the patent recites the retarder produces a phase retardation for all illumination wavelengths that has a value in a range of 0.10 to 0.24 for all the illumination wavelengths (lines 1-4 of claim 17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan et al. (US Pub. 20070085972, Tan).
As per claim 1, Tan teaches (in figures 9-19) a method, comprising: determining a set of illumination wavelengths (red, green, and blue), wherein the set of illumination wavelengths includes at least one illumination wavelength in each of at least three different color spectrums (paragraph 108); selecting a liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) display (LCoS device 20) as a spatial light modulator, the LCoS display operating in at least one of a vertically aligned nematic (VAN) mode and a twisted vertically aligned nematic (TVAN) mode (paragraph 80); and selecting an external retarder (TR wafer 91) having a phase retardation less than 0.25 for each of the wavelengths in the set of illumination wavelengths (10 nm see paragraph 114).
As per claim 8, Tan teaches (in figures 9-19) that the at least three different color spectrums (red, green, and blue) comprise red, green, and blue color spectrums (paragraph 108).
As per claim 9, Tan teaches (in figures 9-19) that a retardation (10 nm see paragraph 114) of the retarder (TR wafer 91) has a value that is less than one- fourth of a shortest illumination wavelength of the set of illumination wavelengths (blue light 415-500 nm, paragraph 108).
As per claim 11, Tan teaches (in figures 9-19) a display system, comprising: a spatial light modulator (LCoS device 20) characterized by a first retardation (paragraph 91) and a first phase retardation (paragraph 10), wherein the spatial light modulator has a first slow axis (LCoS wafer SA 82) for light propagation, wherein the spatial light modulator is a liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS) display that operates in at least one of a vertically aligned nematic (VAN) mode and a twisted vertically aligned nematic (TVAN) mode (paragraph 80); and a retarder (TR wafer 91) that is positioned external to the spatial light modulator, wherein the retarder is characterized by a second retardation (paragraph 9) and a second phase retardation (paragraph 10), the retarder comprising a second slow axis (nominal SA 92) for light propagation, wherein the second retardation has a value such that the retarder has a phase retardation value below 0.25 for all illumination wavelengths in a set of illumination wavelengths (10 nm see paragraph 114), wherein the set of illumination wavelengths includes at least one illumination wavelength in each of at least three different color spectrums (red, green, and blue, paragraph 108).
As per claim 18, Tan teaches (in figures 9-19) that the at least three different color spectrums (red, green, and blue) comprise red, green, and blue color spectrums (paragraph 108).
As per claim 19, Tan teaches (in figures 9-19) that the second retardation (10 nm see paragraph 114) has a value that is less than one-fourth of a shortest illumination wavelength of the set of illumination wavelengths (blue light 415-500 nm, paragraph 108).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (US Pub. 20070085972, Tan) as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above and in further view of Beeson et al. (US Pub. 20050219476, Beeson).
As per claims 7 and 17, Tan teaches (in figures 9-19) comprising: receiving, at the spatial light modulator (LCoS device 20), incident light; and outputting, an image (paragraphs 4 and 176) wherein the image comprises at least three different colors that correspond to each of the illumination wavelengths in the set of illumination wavelengths (red, green, and blue, paragraph 108), and wherein a contrast ratio for each of the three different colors is greater than 2000 (see figure 19 and paragraph 123).
Tan does not teach outputting, at the spatial light modulator, an image, wherein the image comprises at least three different colors that correspond to each of the illumination wavelengths in the set of illumination wavelengths.
However, Beeson teaches (in figures 21 and 22) that forming a display system to comprise a single LCoS device (imaging light modulator 452) and providing three different colors in a time sequential manner (Fig. 21, paragraphs 238-241) is functionally equivalent to a display system which comprises three separate LCoS devices (imaging light modulators 506a-506c) each receiving one of three colors (Fig. 22, paragraphs 247-254).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tan to be formed as a single LCoS panel display device as this arrangement was an art recognized equivalent at the time of filing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871